Delhi District Court
Anita Verma (F) (Fir 61/17/K.Gate) vs Bablu Kumar (Orintal Ins. Co.) on 14 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI
PRESIDING OFFICER, MACT-01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLCT010098492017
MACT No. : 717/2017
FIR No. : 61/2017
PS : Kashmere Gate
u/s : 279/338/304A IPC
1. Smt. Anita Verma,
W/o Late Sh. Bali Verma
2. Sh. Narendra Kumar Verma
S/o Late Sh. Bali Verma
3. Smt. Neha Verma
W/o Sh. Sonu Verma
D/o Late Sh. Bali Verma
4. Ms. Preeti Verma
D/o Late Sh. Bali Verma
5. Mr. Shubham Verma
S/o Late Sh. Bali Verma
All R/o S-102, Sangam Vihar Colony,
Nandanpura, Jhansi, UP.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Bablu Kumar
S/o Sh. Chunni Lal
R/o H. No. A-70, Gali No. 6,
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 33
Sushant Vhar, Ibrahimpur,
Delhi-110036.
2. Sh. Gurpreet Singh Chawla
S/o Sh. Iqbal Singh
R/o A-303, Kesarwani CGHS Ltd,
Plot No. 4, Sector-5, Dwarka
New Delhi-110075.
3. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Issuing Office:
D.O. 22, 24/12, East Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026
Regional Office-I:
Hansalya Building, 10th Floor,
15, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi-110001.
Regd. Office at
Oriental House
A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road,
New Delhi-110002. ......Respondents
Date of filing of DAR : 07.07.2017
Judgment reserved on : 05.02.2024
Date of Award : 14.02.2024
AWAR D
The present Detailed Accident Report (DAR) was filed on 07.07.2017 and was registered as a Motor Accident Claim Petition. The Road Traffic Accident in question took place on 27.02.2017 at about 05.15 A.M. near In Gate ISBT, Ring Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. Mr. Bali Verma expired in the said accident and Mr. Ram Karan sustained grievous injury. The said accident was allegedly caused by the vehicle i.e. Xcent Car bearing registration No.DL 1RTA 5560 which was driven MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 2 of 33 by respondent No.1/Bablu Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2/Mr. Gurdeep Singh Chawla and insured with respondent no. 3/The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Brief facts of the case:
2. Based on the facts outlined in the DAR and the claim petition, it emerges that on 27.02.2017, Sh. Bali Verma was travelling as a passenger in a TSR bearing registration No. UP-1-ET-9213 and had boarded the same from Durgapuri Chowk, Delhi to reach ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi. When the said TSR reached at a distance before ISBT In gate at about 5.15 A.M., a white coloured Xcent Car bearing registration No. DL 1RTA 5560 which was driven by respondent no.1 Bablu Kumar in a rash, reckless and negligent manner at an exorbitantly high speed without observing proper traffic rules and regulations came from Hanuman Mandir, Jamuna Bazar side towards ISBT and hit against the right front side of the aforesaid TSR violently with a forceful impact. Consequently, the deceased Bali Verma fell down on the road from the said TSR along with its driver and sustained fatal head injuries and started bleeding profusely.
3. The deceased Bali Verma was taken to Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi and was admitted there vide MLC No. 497/2017 dated 27.02.2017 and was declared to have been brought dead at 7:09 AM by the treating doctors.
4. It is further averred in the claim petition that the accident MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 3 of 33 had occurred absolutely due to rash, reckless and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Xcent Car bearing registration No. DL 1RTA 5560. The IO investigated in the matter. On the basis of MLC of the deceased and statement of the driver of TSR Sh. Ram Karan and on completion of investigation, the chargesheet for the offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC was filed with respect to respondent no.1 Bablu Kumar before the concerned Magisterial Court, whereas DAR was filed before this Tribunal on 07.07.2017.
Written statements:
5. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a common written statement and respondent no. 3 insurance company also filed its reply to the DAR.
Respondent nos.1 and 2 denied committing any offence as alleged against them and stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Sh. Ram Karan, the driver of the TSR in which the deceased was travelling and due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the TSR, the auto lost its balance and struck against the tanker going ahead on the right side of the auto which fled away after the occurrence of the accident. The respondent no. 3/insurance company although admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent no. 3 company but the liability of the respondent no.3 is limited subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance company.
ISSUES FRAMED
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, vide order dated MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 4 of 33 08.10.2018, this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
i. Whether the deceased Sh. Bali Verma suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 27.02.2017 at about 5.15 A.M. involving Taxi Car bearing registration No. DL-1RTA-5560 driven by the respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? (OPP.) ii. Whether the petitioner/petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP.) iii. Relief.
EVIDENCE
7. The petitioners examined Smt. Anita Verma PW-1, Dr. B. Kanhar as PW-2, Sh. Ram Karan as PW-3 and Sh. Nakul, Branch Manager, Kandela, Prathama UP Gramin Bank as PW-4. The respondent no. 1 examined himself as R1W-1.
8. The petitioner had filed the Form XIII. Financial statement of the petitioners were recorded and final arguments were heard on behalf of the petitioners and all the respondents.
FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS
9. Before delving into the facts of the current case to decide the aforementioned issues, it is pertinent to highlight that it is firmly MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 5 of 33 established in legal precedents that the proceedings conducted before the Claims Tribunal are in the nature of an inquiry. Further, procedural approach adopted by an accident claims' tribunal mirrors that of a civil court (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287). In civil proceedings, the establishment of facts hinges on a preponderance of probabilities, rather than being bound by the strict rules of evidence or the higher standard of beyond reasonable doubt, as required in criminal cases. The burden of proof in civil cases is lighter than in criminal cases, and the burden to decide claim petition under The Motor Vehicles Act is even lesser as compared to a civil litigation. In Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors (2009) 13 SC 530, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that negligence must be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and a holistic view must be adopted in reaching a conclusion.
10. Keeping in mind the aforementioned legal principle for adjudicating the present issue, this Tribunal has thoroughly gone through the testimony of the witnesses and all the material available on record. Also, careful consideration has been given to the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsels for all the parties.
Issue No. 1:
Whether the deceased Sh. Bali Verma suffered fatal injuries in an accident that took place on 27.02.2017 at about 5.15 A.M. involving Taxi Car bearing registration No. DL-1RTA-5560 driven by the respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently, owned by the respondent MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 6 of 33 no. 2 and insured with the respondent no. 3? (OPP.) The factum of accident:
11. In this matter, to prove the occurrence of the accident as well as the rashness and negligence on the part of the driving of offending vehicle by respondent no. 1, the wife of the deceased who is the petitioner in this case examined herself as PW-1 who deposed in her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A as under:-
"1. That I deponent being widow of the deceased Sh. Bali Verma S/o Late Sh. Sukh Lal Verma am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the captioned case and hence I am competent to swear this affidavit exhibited as Ex. PW-1/A which bears my signatures at point 'A' and 'B' thereof.
2. That my deceased husband Shri Bali Verma S/o Late Shri Sukh Lal Verma had died in a roadside vehicular accident on 27.02.2017 at about 5.15 a.m. involving a TSR bearing registration NO. UP-14ET- 9213 and a white coloured Hyundai Xcent Taxi Car bearing registration no. DL-1RTA-5560.
3. That on the unpropitious day of 27th of February 2017 at about 5.15 A.M. my deceased husband Shri Bali Verma S/o Late Shri Sukh Lal Verma was travelling as a passenger in a TSR bearing registration NO. UP-14-ET-9213 and had boarded therein from Durgapuri Chowk, Delhi to reach ISBT Kashmere Gate, Delhi; when the said TSR my deceased husband was travelling in had reached a little distance before ISBT Ingate at about 5.15 a.m. in the mean while a white coloured Hyundai Xcent Taxi Car bearing registration no. DL-1RTA-5560 being driven by its driver/respondent No. 1 in a most rash, reckless and negligent manner at an exorbitantly high speed without observing proper lookouts in contravention of the traffic rules and regulations being laid down by Delhi Police came MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 33 from Hanuman Mandir, Jamuna Bazar side towards ISBT and hit against the right front side of the aforesaid TSR violently with a forceful impact, consequently my deceased husband had fallen down on the road from the said TSR along with its driver and sustained fatal head injuries and started bleeding profusely. He was shortly removed to nearby Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi in a PCR van which arrived upon a call made by some standerby, and was admitted there vide MLC No. 497/2017 dated 27.02.2017 and was declared to have been brought dead at 7:09 a.m. by the treating doctors.
4. That a police case was registered with PS Kashmere Gate, District North, Delhi vide FIR No. 61/2017 dated 27.02.2017 under Section 279/337/304A IPC and the said offending Hyundai Xcent Taxi Car bearing registration No. DL-1RTA- 5560 was impounded and its Driver was arrested by the local police in connection with the accident in question at the instance of the TSR Driver who was the first informant as well as an eye-witness to the occurrence of the accident in question.
5. That I had not witnessed the occurrence of the accident in question however, the averments made by me in the forgoing paras are based upon my knowledge received and believed from the local police and the eye witness of the accident in question."
12. To prove the accident, the petitioner also examined Sh. Ram Karan as PW-3 who was the driver of the TSR. In his evidence by way of affidavit, he testified as under:
"...2. That on dated 27.02.2017 at about 05.15 A.M., I was driving my TSR bearing No. UP-14ET-9213 at a normal speed and on my correct portion of the road with observing the traffic rules. I was going towards ISBT Kashmeri Gate from Durgapuri Chowk along with passengers who were sitting in MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 8 of 33 my TSR. When we reached near in Gate ISBT, Ring Road, Kashmeri Gate, suddenly a Taxi Car bearing No. DL-1R-TA-5560, which was being driven by its driver/respondent no. 1 namely Bablu Kumar at a very high speed, rashly, negligently, without blowing any horn in contravention of the traffic rules came in zig-zag manner and hit my TSR along with me and sitting passengers in my TSR with a great force. As its result of this forceful impact, I along with my TSR and sitting passengers in my TSR fell down on the road and I sustained multiple grievous injuries and passengers also sustained grievous injury their body..."
13. PW-3, Ram Karan, who is also the eye-witness as well as the injured in the alleged road accident has categorically proved the factum of the accident and the identity of respondent no. 1. He has unequivocally testified that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1R-TA-5560, at a very high speed and in the most rash, reckless and negligent manner leading to the accident. The deposition of PW-3 as to manner of the accident and the driving of the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent no. 1 remained unshaken during cross-examination of the said witness and in fact was strengthened during the same. He affirmed that "I was driving my TSR on the left side of the road. The offending vehicle came from behind. The offending vehicle was either a Honda City or Swift Dzire of white colour. I myself had noticed the registration number of the offending vehicle as DL. 1RTA-5560. The left portion of the offending had struck against the right front portion of my TSR." However, it is the case of the respondents that respondent no. 1 was driving his vehicle in the correct lane and it was the driver of the TSR that was negligent due to which the accident took place. He has deposed as follows:
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 9 of 33"...a canter was going ahead of my car on my right side. There was a short gap between my car and the canter. Suddenly, I saw in the side mirror of my car that a TSR, coming from behind at a very high speed, was trying to pass through the little gap between my car and the canter. Seeing the speed of TSR, I gave a pass to the TSR by taking my car on the left side. The TSR was driven by its driver very rashly. negligently and at a very high speed. The TSR crossed through the gap between my car and the canter during this process of overtaking due to the high speed of TSR, its driver lost the control over the TSR due to which its right front portion struck against the left rear portion of the canter, going ahead, as a result of which the TSR turned towards its left. In the mean while I, going just behind the TSR, came near to it. The left side of roof upper portion i.e. roof of the TSR struck against the right side i.e. driver side of my car causing the scratches on the front of and rear right gate of my car. To save myself, immediately took a left turn and stopped my car at a little distance from the TSR. The TSR due to its high speed went away on the road. The driver of the canter fled away with his vehicle from the spot."
14. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 1 had argued that respondent no. 1 has categorically explained that the accident took place due to the fault and negligence of the TSR driver and not due to respondent no.1. He has also referred to the mechanical inspection report as per which the offending vehicle has been damaged from the front right portion. While on the one hand, there is the testimony of PW- 3, who is also an injured in this case, in which it comes out that the offending vehicle had come from behind and hit the TSR driven by PW- 3 and on the other hand we have the testimony of the driver, respondent no. 1 who has deposed that the TSR came from behind and hit the canter on the side due to which, it also hit the car of respondent no. 1. It is imperative to note that the driver has stated that he was taking the car on MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 10 of 33 a side but if he was taking the car on a side then the front of his car would have been towards the left and the rear of the car would have been towards the right side, thus, making the rear portion of his car more prone to getting hit. It appears unreasonable that in such a situation, the front portion of the car would be damaged which is the case as per the mechanical inspection report. Also, the version of PW-3/ injured is supported by the evidence of PW-1 albeit hearsay. Further, the respondent no. 1 is also trying to bring into picture an unknown vehicle (canter) may be with the intention to avoid his liability. It cannot be ignored that to avoid liability, the respondents can build a story and in this case, it seems highly improbable that a TSR would be driving at a speed higher than the car and the canter as much as that it even crossed the car and hit the canter.
15. Moreover, it is an admitted position that PW-3 was the driver of the TSR and he has denied every suggestion that the accident resulted from his own negligence. PW-1 has emphatically testified that respondent no. 1 was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed, rashly and negligently, resulting in the accident.
16. Further, in support of the occurrence of the accident, the IO has affirmed in the DAR filed by him that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1R-TA-5560 was driven by respondent no. 1 and owned by respondent no. 2. Additionally, the IO reported that the offending vehicle was sent for mechanical inspection.
17. Furthermore, it is settled law that this Tribunal is holding an MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 11 of 33 inquiry and not a trial where the case has to be decided to the hilt. Here the burden is even lesser than the balance of probabilities. Therefore, based on the entirety of the record and the testimony of PW-1, the occurrence of the accident and the identification of respondent no. 1, Bablu Kumar, as the driver of the offending vehicle with registration no. DL-1R-TA-5560, have been conclusively established.
18. Therefore, in view of filing of DAR containing the charge- sheet for the offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC and other relevant documents against the respondent no. 1 and in terms of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Vs. Pushpa Rana & Ors. 2009 ACJ 287 Delhi, respondent no. 1 Bablu Kumar (driver of the offending vehicle) is held to be negligent on the basis of preponderance of probability. From the DAR, it also stands established that the offending vehicle was owned by Gurdeep Singh, respondent no. 2 and insured with respondent no. 3, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide Policy No. 625066 valid from 29.03.2016 to 28.03.2017. The factum of said insurance is also admitted by respondent no. 3.
The injury:
19. The MLC No. 062 dated 27.02.2017 reveals that one unknown person was brought in unconscious state to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital at 07:09 AM and it was informed that the patient had met a road traffic accident at Outgate, ISBT at 5:30 AM that day. The said person was "declared dead on arrival". Further, the postmortem report of the deceased which is part of DAR reveals that the deceased sustained many MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 12 of 33 external and internal injuries and that the main cause of his death "combined effect cranio cerebral damage and shock & haemorrhage as a result of injury to vital organs consequent upon blunt force impact." All the injuries were stated to be ante mortem in origin and fresh before death. Thus, it stands established that deceased Bali Verma had expired on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident in question.
In view of aforesaid discussion, issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioners (LRs of deceased) and against the respondents.
Issue no. 2:
Whether the petitioner/petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? (OPP.)
20. The petitioners are certainly entitled for compensation in view of the decision of issue no. 1 above. The onus of proving the extent of compensation was upon the Petitioners. To prove their claim, the petitioners examined Smt. Anita Verma, the wife of the deceased as PW- 1 who in her affidavit Ex. PW1/1, has deposed as under:-
"6. That my deceased husband was aged about 54 years being born on 10.07.1963 and was possessing a sound health and robust physique without suffering from any sort of ailments. Had my deceased husband not died in the accident in question he would have lived up to the age of 90 years as per the history of longevity in his family.
7. That my deceased husband was an energetic man in the age group of about 54 years and was MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 13 of 33 occupationally Branch Manager of Kandela, Muzaffar Nagar, UP Branch being employed with Sarva UP Gramin Bank and thereby he was earning Rs. 1,00,000/- p.m. approx. gross salary in view of the 7th Pay Commission and he was contributing the petitioners with more than 3/4th of his earnings.
8. That my deceased husband is survived by his widow/deponent, aged about 46 years, One major married son, aged about 29 year, one major married daughter, aged about 28 years, one major unmarried daughter, aged about 24 years and major unmarried son, aged about 22 years respectively arrayed as petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 in the array of petitioners. The petitioners were fully dependent on the earnings of the deceased.
9. That I, deponent rely upon the entire DAR Report including my affidavit tendered to the IO along with the Election Identity Cards, Aadhar Cards and PAN Cards of the deceased and the petitioners and the proof of earning of my deceased husband inter-alia the other criminal case documents annexed with the DAR Report exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1(Colly.)"
21. The petitioners are claiming a total compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,64,86,135/- (as per form XIII) from the respondents. I have considered the evidence on record and perused the entire record.
22. The general principles relating to computation of compensation in such cases were laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121 which were reiterated by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. decided on 31.10.2017. The same are as under:
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 14 of 33"...18. Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death:
(a) age of the deceased;
(b) income of the deceased; and
(c) the number of dependents.
The issues to be determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are:
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income;
(ii) the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased; and
(iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased.
If these determinations are standardized, there will be uniformity and consistency in the decisions. There will be lesser need for detailed evidence. It will also be easier for the Insurance Companies to settle accident claims without delay.
19. To have uniformity and consistency, the Tribunals should determine compensation in cases of death, by the following well settled steps:
Step 1 (Ascertaining the multiplicand) The income of the deceased per annum should be determined. Out of the said income a deduction should be made in regard to the amount which the deceased would have spent on himself by way of personal and living expenses. The balance, which is considered to be the contribution to the dependent family, constitutes the multiplicand.
Step 2 (Ascertaining the multiplier) Having regard to the age of the deceased and period of active career, the appropriate multiplier should be selected. This does not mean ascertaining the number of years he would have lived or worked but for the accident. Having regard to several imponderables in life and economic factors, a table of multiplier with reference to the MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 15 of 33 age has been identified by this Court. The multiplier should be chosen from the said table with reference to the age of the deceased.
Step 3 (Actual Calculation) The annual contribution to the family (multiplicand) when multiplied by such multiplier gives the 'loss of dependency' to the family.
Thereafter, a conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- may be added as loss of estates. Where the deceased is survived by his widow, another conventional amount in the range of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- should be added under the head of loss of consortium. But no amount is to be awarded under the head of pain, suffering or hardship caused to the legal heirs of the deceased.
The funeral expenses, cost of transportation of the body (if incurred) and the cost of any medical treatment of the deceased before death (if incurred) should also be added....." .
Age determination of the deceased:
23. Applying the principles settled in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra) to the facts of the present case, the first aspect to be determined is the age of the deceased. According to the petitioners, the deceased Bali Verma was aged 54 years old at the time of the accident. The PAN card bearing no. AAQOV0880P of the deceased Bali Verma shows that his date of birth was 10.07.1963.
Accordingly, the deceased Bali Verma was precisely aged 53 years, 7 months and 17 days old at the time of accident on 27.02.2017. Thus, it is concluded that the age of the deceased was more than 53 years old at the time of accident but less than 54 years. Hence, applying the MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 16 of 33 criteria laid down in the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC (Supra) the multiplier applicable according to the age of deceased, would be eleven (11) as the deceased would fall in the bracket of 51-55 years.
Income of the deceased:
24. The petitioners have claimed that the deceased Bali Verma was working as a Manager in Prathama UP Gramin Bank and was earning Rs. 85,105/- per month. In support of their claim, the petitioners had filed on record the PAN Card of the deceased Ex. PW-1/12 and Departmental I card Ex. PW-1/2. Sh. Nakul, Branch Manager, Prathama UP Gramin Bank was examined as PW-4 who proved that the deceased was working as Branch Manager in the said bank and he also proved his salary record which shows that after deductions, the net salary of the deceased was Rs. 64,640.12/- for the month of February, 2017. The said salary record is Ex. PW-4/3. The said record has not been disputed by the respondents. It is well settled that strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an MACT enquiry, which is not even a trial. Thus, it stands proved that Bali Verma (since deceased) was working with Prathama UP Gramin Bank and was earning Rs. 64,640.12/- per month after deductions at the time of the accident i.e. on 27.02.2017.
Personal deductions:
25. As regards the aspect of deduction towards personal living expenses of the deceased is concerned, it is an admitted case of the MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 17 of 33 petitioners and also evident from the DAR that the deceased Bali Verma had left behind five legal heirs i.e. his wife Anita (aged about 46 years);
major married son Narender Kumar Verma (aged about 29 years); major married daughter Neha Verma (aged about 28 years); major unmarried daughter Preeti Verma (aged about 24 years) and major unmarried son Shubham Verma (aged about 22 years). It is also claimed that all the petitioners were fully dependent upon the salary of the petitioner, however, no such document has been placed on record. Since, all his children had already attained the age of majority and do not seem to have been dependent upon the deceased, it is concluded that the deceased had only one legal heir who was financially dependent on him i.e. his wife. Thus, in view of the settled proposition of law as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma & Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another (Supra), the deductions in the income of the deceased towards his living and personal expenses would be one half of his income (there being one dependent of the deceased i.e. his wife as all his children are major). Further, by adopting the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), the future prospects of the deceased Bali Verma shall be 15% as he had crossed the age of 50 years at the time of accident on 30.05.2017.
Compensation under non-pecuniary heads:
26. The case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) was considered and clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 18 of 33 Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9581/2018 decided on 18.09.2018 whereby after considering the case of Pranay Sethi's (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to award loss of consortium of Rs. 40,000/- to each dependent of the deceased and further pleased to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each dependent of the deceased towards loss of love and affection. The relevant portion is as under:
"...... A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium.
In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 19 of 33Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.....".
27. However, in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur 2020 SCC Online SC 410 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 20 of 33 head. The relevant portion of the observations are reproduced as under:
"...... The amount to be awarded for loss consortium will be as per the amount fixed in Pranay Sethi (supra). At this stage, we consider it necessary to provide uniformity with respect to the grant of consortium, and loss of love and affection. Several Tribunals and High Courts have been awarding compensation for both loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra), has recognized only three conventional heads under which compensation can be awarded viz. loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. In Magma General (supra), this Court gave a comprehensive interpretation to consortium to include spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. Loss of love and affection is comprehended in loss of consortium.
The Tribunals and High Courts are directed to award compensation for loss of consortium, which is a legitimate conventional head. There is no justification to award compensation towards loss of love and affection as a separate head...".
28. In the Pranay Sethi case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of Estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively, with enhancement at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. By applying the said principles and law laid down in Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur case (supra), a sum of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded under each head of Loss of Estate and funeral expenses and a sum of Rs.44,000/- each is awarded to all the petitioners towards Loss of Consortium.
29. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 had submitted that the ex gratia amount received by the deceased should be deducted from the MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 21 of 33 total award amount, however, no such amount has been proved by respondent no. 3 and thus, no such deduction is allowed.
Computation of compensation:
30. Applying the settled guidelines in the various judgments, the compensation payable to the petitioners is calculated as under:
Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims
No. Tribunal
1 Monthly Income of deceased (A) Rs. 64,640.12/-
2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= 9,696.01/-
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (64,640.12/- + 9,696.01/-)
personal and living expenses of 1/2=
the deceased (C) Rs. 37,168.06/-
4 Monthly loss of dependency (64,640.12+9,696.01/)-
[(A+B) - C = D] 37,168.06=
Rs. 37,168.07/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency 37,168.07 x
(D x 12) 12=4,46,016.84/-
6 Multiplier (E) 11
7 Total loss of dependency 4,46,016.84 x 11=
DxE=F Rs. 49,06,185.24/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 44,000 x 5=2,20,000/-
consortium (I) to all the 05 (with 10% enhancement in petitioners terms of Pranay Sethi's judgment).
11 Compensation for loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/-
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 22 of 33(J) 12 Compensation for funeral Rs. 15,000/-
expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 51,56,185.24/-
(Round off:-
Rs. 51,56,185/-)
31. Further, in view of the judgment of Benson George V. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 1540 of 2022 decided on 25.02.2022, the claimants are held entitled to interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of DAR i.e. from 07.07.2017 till realization.
Apportionment:
32. It is evident from the record that the deceased Bali Verma had left behind five legal heirs i.e. his wife Anita (aged about 46 years);
major married son Narender Kumar Verma (aged about 29 years); major married daughter Neha Verma (aged about 28 years); major unmarried daughter Preeti Verma (aged about 24 years) and major unmarried son Shubham Verma (aged about 22 years). For the sake of convenience, the individual shares of the dependents of the deceased are tabulated as under:-
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with Amount in (Rupees) deceased
1. Anita Verma Wife Rs. 49,36,185.24/-
+ Rs. 44,000/-
= Rs. 49,80,185.24/-
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 23 of 33(rounded off to Rs.
49,80,185/-)
2. Narender Kumar Major married son Rs. 44,000/-
Verma
3. Neha Verma Major married Rs. 44,000/-
daughter
4. Preeti Verma Major unmarried Rs. 44,000/-
daughter
5. Shubham Verma Major unmarried Rs. 44,000/-
son Disbursement
33. On realization of the award amount, a sum of Rs.1,80,185/- (Rupees One Lac Eighty Thousand One Hundred & Eighty Five only) along with entire interest amount be released to the petitioner no. 1 Anita Verma (wife of the deceased) and her balance amount of Rs.48,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Lakhs only) shall be put in 96 (Ninety Six) monthly fixed deposits in her name in MACAD account of equal amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each for a period of 01 month to 96 months respectively, with cumulative interest in terms of the directions contained in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021. Besides the above said amount, amount of FDRs on maturity, shall automatically be transferred in her saving account maintained in a nationalized bank situated near the place of her residence without the facility of cheque book and ATM card.
34. Further, the amount of Rs. 44,000/- each as loss of consortium along with interest thereupon be released to petitioners no. 2 to 5 namely Narender Kumar Verma; Neha Verma; Preeti MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 24 of 33 Verma and Shubham Verma immediately on receipt of the award amount.
35. It is clarified that the aforesaid amounts shall be released to all the petitioners only on submitting the copy of passbook of savings account in a bank near to their residence with endorsement of the bank that no cheque book facility and ATM card has been issued or if it has been issued the said ATM Card has been withdrawn and shall not be issued without the prior permission of this Tribunal.
36. The above FDRs shall be prepared with the following conditions as enumerated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 07.12.2018 & 08.01.2021 in FAO No. 842/2003 under the title Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. v. Jaivir Singh & Ors.:
(i) The bank shall not permit any joint name to be added in the saving account or fixed deposit accounts of the claimants i.e. saving bank accounts of the claimants shall be an individual saving bank account and not a joint account.
(ii) Original fixed deposit shall be retained by the bank in safe custody. However, the statement containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the claimants.
(iii) The maturity amount of the FDRs be credited by the ECS in the saving bank account of the claimant near the place of their residence.
(iv) No loan, advance or withdrawal or premature discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without the permission of the court.
(v) The concerned bank shall not issue any cheque book and/or debit card to claimants. However, in case the debit MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 25 of 33 card and/or cheque book have already been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall debit card(s) freeze the account of claimants so that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of claimants from any other branch of the bank.
(vi) The bank shall make an endorsement on the passbook of the claimant to the effect, that no cheque books and/or debit card have been issued and shall not be issued without the permission of the Court and the claimant shall produced the passbook with the necessary endorsement before the Court for compliance.
37. In compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court in FAO No. 842/2003 dated 08.01.2021, Summary of the Award in the prescribed Format-XV is as under:
SUMMARY OF AWARD:
1. Date of Accident: 27.02.2017
2. Name of the deceased: Bali Verma
3. Age of the deceased: 53 years, 7 months and 17 days old.
4. Occupation of deceased: Manager in a bank
5. Income of the deceased: Rs. 64,640/-
6. Name, Age and relationship of legal representatives of deceased:
S.No. Name of the claimant Relation with deceased
1. Anita Verma Wife
2. Narender Kumar Son Verma
3. Neha Verma Daughter
4. Preeti Verma Daughter MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 26 of 33
5. Subham Verma Son COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION Sr. Head Awarded by the Claims No. Tribunal 1 Monthly Income of deceased 64,640.12/-
(A) 2 Add future prospect (B) @ 15%= 9,696.01/-
3 Less 1/2 deductions towards (64,640.12/- + 9,696.01/-)
personal and living expenses of 1/2=
the deceased (C) Rs. 37,168.06/-
4 Monthly loss of dependency (64,640.12+9,696.01/)-
[(A+B) - C = D] 37,168.06=
Rs. 37,168.07/-
5 Annual loss of Dependency 37,168.07 x 12=4,46,016.84/-
(D x 12)
6 Multiplier (E) 11
7 Total loss of dependency 4,46,016.84 x 11=
DxE=F Rs. 49,06,185.24/-
8 Medical Expenses (G) Nil.
9 Compensation for loss of love Nil.
and affection (H)
10 Compensation for loss of 44,000 x 5=2,20,000/-
consortium (I) to all the 06 (with 10% enhancement in petitioners terms of Pranay Sethi's judgment).
11 Compensation for loss of 15,000/-
Estate (J) 12 Compensation for funeral 15,000/-
expenses (K) 13 Total Compensation (F+I+J+K) Rs. 51,56,185.24/-
(Round off:-
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 27 of 33Rs. 51,56,185/-)
14 Rate of Interest Awarded 6% 15 Interest amount up to the date Rs. 20,41,849.25/-
of award (6 years and 7 months and 6 days) 16 Total amount including interest Rs. 71,98,034.25/-
(rounded off to Rs. 71,98,034/-) 17 Award amount released As per paragraph No. 33 18 Award amount kept in FDRs As per paragraph No. 33 19 Mode of disbursement of the As per paragraph No. 33 award amount to the claimant(s) 20 Next Date of compliance of the 16.03.2024 award LIABILITY:
38. The offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no.1 Bablu Kumar, owned by respondent no. 2 Gurdeep Singh and insured with respondent no.3 The Oriental Insurance Co., thus, all the respondents shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Issue No. 2 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
RELIEF:
39. In view of the above, the respondent no. 3 The Oriental MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 28 of 33 Insurance Company Limited, is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.51,56,185/- (Rupees Fifty One Lakhs Fifty Six Thousand One Hundred & Eighty Five only) along with interest @ 6 % from the date of filing of DAR i.e. 07.07.2017 with the Civil Nazir of this Tribunal within 30 days under intimation to the claimants, failing which insurance company shall be liable to pay interest @ 7.5 % per annum for the period of delay beyond 30 days.
40. Ahlmad is directed to e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to the insurance company for compliance within the time granted as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in WP (Civil) No. 534/2020 titled as Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. on 16.03.2021. The said respondent is further directed to give intimation of deposit of the compensation amount to the claimant and shall file a compliance report with the Claims Tribunal with respect to the deposit of the compensation amount within 15 days of the deposit with a copy to the Claimant and his counsel.
Ahlmad shall also e-mail an authenticated copy of the award to Branch Manager, SBI, Tis Hazari Courts for information.
A copy of this award be forwarded to the parties free of cost.
Ahlmad is directed to send the copy of the award to Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned and Delhi Legal Services Authority in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial nos. 39, 40 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A)].
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 29 of 33Civil Nazir is directed to place a report on record on 15.03.2024 in the event of non-receipt/deposit of the compensation amount within the time granted.
Further Nazir is directed to maintain the record in Form XVIII in view of Central Motor Vehicles (fifth Amendment) Rules, 2022 [(Directions at serial no. 41 of Procedure for Investigation of Motor Vehicle Accidents (under Rule 150A).
Ahlmad is further directed to comply with the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in MAC APP No. 10/2021 titled as New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangeeta Vaid & Ors., date of decision : 06.01.2021 regarding digitisation of the records.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court on RUCHI by RUCHI AGGARWAL 14th day of February, 2024. AGGARWAL ASRANI ASRANI Date: 2024.02.14 18:58:59 +0530 (Dr. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI PO, MACT-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 30 of 33FORM - XVII COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME TO BE MENTIONED IN THE AWARD 1 Date of Accident 27.02.2017 2 Date of filing of Form-I -
First Accident Report Not available
(FAR)
3 Date of delivery of Form-II
to the victim(s) 07.07.2017
4 Date of receipt of Form-III
from the Driver 07.07.2017
5 Date of receipt of Form-IV
from the Owner 07.07.2017
6 Date of filing of the Form-
V - Interim Accident Not available
Report (IAR)
7 Date of receipt of Form- Not attached
VIA and Form VIB from
the Victim(s)
8 Date of filing of Form-VII
- Detail Accident Report 07.07.2017
(DAR)
9 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the
part of the Investigating No.
Officer? If so, whether any
action/direction warranted?
10 Date of appointment of the
Designated Officer by the Not provided by the Insurance
Insurance Company Company
11 Whether the Designated
Officer of the Insurance Yes.
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 31 of 33
Company admitted his
report within 30 days of the
DAR?
12 Whether there was any
delay or deficiency on the No.
part of the Designated
Officer of the Insurance
Company? If so, whether
any action/direction
warranted?
13 Date of response of the No response.
claimant(s) to the offer of
the Insurance Company.
14 Date of award 14.02.2024
15 Whether the claimant(s)
were directed to open Yes.
savings bank account(s)
near their place of
residence?
16 Date of order by which
claimant(s) were directed to
open Savings Bank 22.08.2023
Account(s) near his place of
residence and produce PAN
card and Aadhaar Card and
the direction to the bank not
to issue any cheque
book/debit card to the
claimant(s) and make an
endorsement to this effect
on the passbook(s).
17 Date on which the 28.11.2023
claimant(s) produced the
passbook of their savings
bank account(s) near the
place of their residence
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 32 of 33
alongwith the endorsement,
PAN card and Aadhaar
Card?
18 Permanent residential
address of the claimant(s). As per Award
19 Whether the claimant(s)
savings bank account(s) is
Yes.
near their place of
residence?
20 Whether the Claimant(s)
were examined at the time
of passing of the Award to Yes.
ascertain his/their financial
condition?
(Dr. Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani)
PO, MACT-01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
14.02.2024
MACT No. 717/17 Anita Verma & Ors. vs. Bablu Kumar & Ors. Page 33 of 33